Thank you for stating the obvious...

Don't you just LOVE this poster? Pink band-aids, front cleavage AND sarcasm?

By 1968, it was no secret that Christoper Lee was the undisputed Dracula of the generation. Lee had appeared in quite a few other Hammer productions and they had all been quite successful, but his bread was ultimately buttered by Dracula's success that he found it difficult to be seen as anybody else. While he would soon be almost contemptuous about the character he had re-invented, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave still remains one of the better films. While not quite up to par as the first and DPOD, it's still quite respectable with some fascinating new ideas, more on that later.

                                   With more buxom dead women hanging upside down to spare!

If the title wasn't obvious enough, Dracula has indeed risen from the grave and as predicted, quite pissed off with everybody alive. Van Helsing or Sandor do not return, in fact, there is no real heroic older warrior fated to battle with Dracula. No, instead we meet Paul (Barry Andrews), young, handsome, in love and harboring a secret that will dictate how he  does battle with Dracula. He is the loving suitor of Maria (the lovely Veronica Carlson), an arrangement that her father, the Monsignor Ernest Muller hardly agrees with. Despite this, Paul's work and love life are still pretty damn good until Dracula comes a-calling.
You see, Dracula arose from the grave when a cowardly, weak-willed priest, a friend of the Monsignor's, traveled to Dracula's castle to place a cross on the door to sanctify it from evil. His travelling companion fell and died, his blood mysteriously finding it's way into Dracula's mouth. Yes, I am intentionally being vague about where Dracula is in this situation because if I told you, you wouldn't believe me. Dracula ain't happy about the cross on his door and he makes the weak priest his slave, as you do.

So Dracula sets up his chop shop in the town where the other characters are going about their business, and as expected, he starts to thrall/and/or/kill his victims, one case being the loose barmaid Zena (Barbra Ewing, who is only too happy to show a little more cleavage than anybody in the films at this point), who has an unrequited feelings regarding Paul.

Terence Fisher didn't return to direct this sequel, instead the duties were handed over to Freddie Francis who takes everything in stride. Where Fisher made his films with a sense of classic Gothic forboding, Francis is more in favour of adding more visual flare, using dramatic, almost symbolic lighting and imagery. He can fill empty spaces with a sense of disorientating claustrophobia and turn the dreariest cellar into a kaleidiscopic chamber of frights. He also really knows how to use this unusually colourful style to compliment the stature of Christopher Lee, making him look just that little more menacing.

                                                              The death of disco.


DHRFTG may not have the distinct flavor the previous two Dracula films had, but for what it lacks in paying homage to old school it makes up for in brand new notions. Granted, obviously Hammer had to keep the series fresh for years to come (and in some cases failing in execution), but I find the crucial twist to affairs is quite, quite clever. Paul is not some member of a cult long devoted to fighting Dracula, nor is he half vampire like Blade, no, he is.... an atheist. Now do you see Maria's father doesn't like him? :-D When shit hits the fan and Paul is called upon to help save Maria (after Dracula's inevitable visit to her bedroom, ya-HOO), it's difficult for him because in order to defeat Dracula (in this case), you must have faith, Christian faith, to vanquish him. Given this dynamic was introduced early in the film, it's pay-off has that much more of an impact than you would expect. However, there is a massive cop-out that is to be anticipated when Paul finally eliminates Dracula- he converts, just like that. I didn't like that- sure he had to struggle with himself in order to save the woman he loved, but a total spiritual make over? Come on. I liked Atheist Paul better than Born Again Virgin Paul.

Now, what can be said about Lee other than what has already been stated? Nothing new really, but a massive development that has occurred between DPOD and DHRFTG is that Dracula has become especially violent toward women, Zena in particular. He thralls her, no muss, no fuss, orders her around, uses her as an occasional drink and just overall abuses her. He doesn't even have the decency to make her into a vampire. This trait continues on through the series, getting more dire in degrees that you almost forget he is a vampire and see him more as an abusive boyfriend. It's definitely a shocking development, but in terms of Dracula, you can see the logic- he really is the pimp of the undead.

 

                                            Protect your woman from Dracula's pimp hand, Paul!


If I may say so, I should say this is where the Hammer Dracula franchise should have ended. It came, it saw and Dracula's destruction seemed final. Of course, money spoke loudly and then the Dracula Express starting to roll downhill at breakneck speed. DHRFTG bids farewell to solid horror storytelling only to make way for many senseless and confusing sequels that were made with an eye for profit than true viewer pleasure that went beyond showing nubile female flesh. Check it out and shed a small tear of blood with me.

Trivia: Lee does indeed speak in this movie, and while I couldn't say no listening to Lee's voice, there are a few clunkers. When he sees the cross upon his castle door, he says "Who did this? Who DID this?", which sounds like an owner chastising a dog that pooped on their shoes. Methinks Lee got a little more in the pocket this time around.

The Prince has returned

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Unliving la vida loca

I feel I must apologise for not doing this review yesterday, I really was in a rush to start on Lee's Count that I completely skimmed over the Spanish equivalent of 1931's American version (whew, mouthful). Filmed simultaneously with Browning's production during the nighttime hours, using the same story line, same sets, same schedule and same budget (more or less) it really is more of a curiousity in early talkie cinema than anything else. Not to say Spanish Dracula doesn't have some nice things to offer because it does, more than you'd think. This is virtually the same movie, yet also different.
Keeping this in mind, let's have a closer look at this oddity.

While both versions are evidently tame by today's standards, Melford's version is a little more, shall we say, FORWARD. Given that this is a European production, the subtexts are not so subtle, the insinuations become a lot more obvious and the women are a lot hotter for Dracula with the lower-cut dresses to prove it (though Hammer arguably perfected that).
Everything about this movie is highly theatrical like Browning's take, but while Lugosi played Dracula close to the vest which made the character a subtle yet charming menace, wild-eyed Carlos Villarias is the polar opposite. There is nothing about this guy that is NOT obvious. His mannerisms are grandiose, his cape flourishings are hard to miss and his wacky speeches stand out like a sore toe, it's almost as if Villarias is competing with the actor playing Renfield (who is utterly energetic in his own brand of insanity) for Most Crazy Hombre. And yet, despite all of these painfully obvious hints that he is not normal, the women still flock to him. I'm serious! The moment Eva (Mina) and Lucia (Lucy) clap eyes on Villarias's Dracula, they are not shy little wallflowers even when Dracula marvels at the wonder of death and dying. If anything, this morbid talk actually turns Eva and Lucia on, and you can see it in their eyes- the way they gaze at Dracula has the thinly-veiled carnal yearning that the American actresses in Browning's counterpart could only politely hint at. It is this kind of sexuality that was considered far too inappropriate for American audiences... ironic to say that now, isn't it? It just goes to show you guys, even if you look like a nuthouse patient, it's all in the personality.

Despite the way I am talking about these bizzare aspects, I'm not saying they are negative at all. Villarias is a very bizzare actor to watch and he may not have sold the character as well as Lugosi did, the rest of film is highly consistent in keeping atmosphere, style and pacing to a respectable degree. One of the key differences is that Melford use of the camera is highly dynamic, it is never static for very long, that is to say, that while you still see all of the action, the framing is never the same for very long and it keeps your attention. Another advantage this one boasts is that it's continuity in character and story line is far more consistent than Browning's version- the fates and motivations of characters are all recognized and resolved by the time the movie ends. There is something in Villarias's performance that could almost be seen as a precursor to Gary Oldman's Count in Bram Stoker's Dracula, as in, an unconventional performance that isn't quite this, and isn't quite that, but it's still a fascinating show.

                                                                  OHHHH CUBANS!

While Browning's version may be the most widely known and culturally relevant to cinema and while Lugosi is still the undisputed portrayal of Dracula in the history of film, Melford's Dracula should not be overlooked. Yes, the inherent insanity of some of the performances may grate nerves, and while you know this film could be construed as a cash-in, to disregard it would almost be unfair. You still are watching a trail that has been blazed by Lugosi, but in this case, it's a trail that can be easily deviated from which still works admirably. And even if all of this doesn't endear itself to you, you can at least take great merriment in the faces Villarias pulls. This guy is having the time of his undead life, and who are we to hold that against him?

                                                     


Trivia: Although nobody on either production apparently saw each other during filming, Bela Lugosi was called to stand in for Villarias for one moment in the film in virtually the same pose he did for Browning's film. I'll let you figure out where.

Bite Me!

All Dracula Bites


Dracula spreads the love to these lucky ladies throughout all of the Hammer films in this clip.

Could it be... Lee?

While Lugosi's Count of Counts was generally a one-off affair, Dracula was resurrected again by Hammer Films in the formidable shape of Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee which turned out to become a long-running franchise full of hits and misses. While the 70's Hammer fully embraced sex, blood and nudity, in my opinion, the true essense of the series remains back in the first few installments, back when mere mortal men feared him and women tremblingly desired him. In Horror of Dracula, or Dracula as it was known outside of the UK, there was still a lot of fear to be felt, but also, a sense of dark animal sexuality rather than simple gaudy lust.

When Hammer Studios was first formed, it primarily made comedies, film noirs, dramas and crime thrillers, but it was the mid- 50's that truly saw the birth of Hammer Horror, and this was the time period that many a horror fan and Dracula fan will remember the most fondly because the moment they saw Christopher Lee with blazing red eyes and nasty, pointed teeth hissing like a demonic beast, they knew they were in for a ride.

                                                                   Count RapeFace

Despite the time period of which Horror was made, this is quite a sumptuous looking picture, in full colour. You can only imagine how the sight of bright red blood must have shocked movie goers back in the day. With this knowledge, the production milks every frame, every scene for what it's worth. Although there are no technically fancy camera angles, Fisher more than makes up for it by really working every other facility- lighting, dramatic music score, composition... it all works very well. If that sounds a little airy-fairy, I should also mention that violence wise, while it still leaves much to the imagination, the make up and visual effects shows enough to really stand out. You see some pretty brutal stakings, cross burnings, bloody bite marks AND a decomposition, all of it blameless and all of it made by hand.
You can truly see the skill of all involved in the production in this movie, and once again, while it may be tame by today's standards, you can't deny the fact it was made with an eye to make it the best product it could possibly be. On top of what we see in terms of visuals, we have ourselves a talented cast. It's not a diamond in the rough affair in terms of actors- the key players here, unlike Browning's Dracula all perform with charisma to spare, Melissa Stribling, Mina HOLMWOOD (not Harker) especially so. You wouldn't think it, but Stribling's performance is actually quite fascinating to watch. For the most part, she is a proper Victorian woman dearly devoted to her husband, Arthur (another deviation, yes) and her duty of care to sickly Lucy, (who is the sister this time) the fiancee of Jonathan Harker. However, when she falls into Dracula's clutches, she becomes a little unsettling. It's not an overt performance, but there is a look in her eyes that will make you think "What DID Dracula do to her?". Another player that gives a wonderful performance (though this time, predicatably so) is Peter Cushing as Professor Van Helsing. He may not be Dutch and he may not have a small dose of the crazy such as his literary counterpart, but I would feel a lot safer if I had Cushing's Van Helsing in my corner. Self-assured, clear-thinking and effortlessly resourceful, he is much a force of good as he is a force of knowledge.

And what of Lee's performance, you ask? The guy is equal parts a barbarian as he is a pimp. Although the later notion is only lightly hinted, you get it from the get go that Dracula can be a sexual predator. He lays claim to women whenever he pleases and he throws them aside as if they were nothing when he is sick of them, sometimes in violent ways. Everybody is part of his sanguinous banquet, even if they don't know it just yet. In that essence, he is like Stoker's Dracula- he is a foreign, powerful virile creature who can make any man fear for their lives, and for the faithfulness of their women. I would be lying if I said that this Dracula wasn't arousing, despite how vicious he is. Lee's Dracula just has everything going for him, up until the moment Van Helsing finally disposes of him. This is one motherfucker you just don't want to mess with. Despite the fact that the character would become cheapened through the series, folks loved The Lee and here, you can see why.

Horror of Dracula is, at least in my blood-tinted vision, unmissable. Lee AND this film truly set the benchmark for further Draculas to come by the instrumentation of fear and sexuality. This is not a faithful adaption, but in this case, Horror of Dracula is still a marvelously self-contained take on the tale and is one of the best Draculas out there. See it, and call me in the morning... provided your throat hasn't been torn out.

Trivia: Isn't it remarkable serendipity that Peter Cushing was born on the 26th of May and Lee on the 27th despite being several years apart?